Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Java 8 vs Java 11Compatibilityrequirements

Thanks, Reza.  It sounds like you would be in favor of Alternative #2 -- Java SE 8 required, with Java SE 11 not required for Jakarta EE 9.  If we're lucky, we'll still be able to support Java SE 11 without a point release.  Thanks again!


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:        reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
To:        JakartaEE Spec Project Leadership discussions <jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx>, jakartaee-platform developer        discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        07/08/2020 22:47
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Java 8 vs Java 11        Compatibility        requirements
Sent by:        jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




In my opinion, a more rapid release cadence than Java EE is a key objective for Jakarta EE. I also agree that most people are still on Java SE 8. It would actually be even more impressive to have a Jakarta EE 9.1 release that features Java SE 11 support.

Reza Rahman
Jakarta EE Ambassador, Author, Blogger, Speaker

Please note views expressed here are my own as an individual community member and do not reflect the views of my employer.

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 7/8/20 9:47 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, JakartaEE Spec Project Leadership discussions <jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] [jakartaee-platform-dev] Java 8 vs Java 11 Compatibility requirements

Kevin,
 
I mean Alternative #1.
I know September timeframe is important from the marketing viewpoint,
but I don’t think we should postpone Java 11 burdens to Jakarta EE 10 according to the big ban concept.
 
There may be another alternative if risk is high .
 
Alternative 1’:
     Alternative 1 +   slip the release date
 
 
-Kenji Kazumura
 
 
 
From: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kevin Sutter
Sent:
Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:57 AM
To:
JakartaEE Spec Project Leadership discussions <jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:
jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Java 8 vs Java 11 Compatibility requirements

 
Thanks, Kenji,
Just trying to clarify your response since you mentioned the "move to Java 11".  Are you indicating the desire to have Glassfish be compiled at the Java SE 11 bytecode level?  If we go that route, then Glassfish can not be the CI for Java SE 8 compatibility.


Or, are you meaning what I wrote for Alternative #1?  Glassfish (and the TCK) would be compiled at the Java SE 8 bytecode level, but Java SE 11 runtime would be the requirement to certify Glassfish for Jakarta EE 9.  Java SE 8 would still be optional.


Even moving to the Java SE 11 runtime (keeping the Glassfish and TCK bytecode levels at Java SE 8) introduces risk to the already aggressive plans.

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  
sutter@xxxxxxxxxx    Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:        
"kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx" <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        
"JakartaEE Spec Project Leadership        discussions" <jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx>, jakartaee-platform developer        discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:        
07/08/2020 18:35
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] Re: [jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Java 8 vs Java 11        Compatibility        requirements
Sent by:        
jakartaee-spec-project-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

Alternative 2 seems to be procrastination.

Sooner or later we have to move to Java 11.

The intent of big ban approach is mainly javax name space transitions,

but we should also finish the migration of Java 11 in Jakarta EE 9

in order to reduce the burden of incompatibilities in futures.

 

The reason why many of customers don't use Java 11 is a chicken and egg situation.

If Platform Specification does not move to Java 11 as default, nobody want to use Java 11.

In order to encourage both vendors and customers move to Java 11,

we should move to Java 11 as default in Jakarta EE 9.

 

 

-Kenji Kazumura

 

 

From:jakartaee-spec-project-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakartaee-spec-project-leads-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Kevin Sutter
Sent:
Wednesday, July 8, 2020 6:30 AM
To:
jakartaee-platform developer discussions <
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; JakartaEE Spec Project Leadership discussions <jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
[jakartaee-spec-project-leads] Java 8 vs Java 11 Compatibility requirements

 

Hi,
This topic has come up on our TCK mailing list (
https://www.eclipse.org/lists/jakartaee-tck-dev/msg00785.html).  The basic issue is that we *may* have a mismatch on our stated Java support statements and what can or will be delivered.  I'd first like to explain the problem, and then suggest a couple of alternatives, and then ask for feedback.  We need to make a decision by the end of this week (July 10).  I'm moving this discussion to the Platform and Spec Project Leads mailing lists to get a wider audience.

The Jakarta EE 9 Release Plan (
https://eclipse-ee4j.github.io/jakartaee-platform/jakartaee9/JakartaEE9ReleasePlan) states this:

Java SE Version

For inclusion in Jakarta EE 9, specification’s APIs MUST be compiled at the Java SE 8 source level. However, compatible implementations of the Jakarta EE 9 Web Profile and Full Profile MUST certify compatibility on Java SE 11. Compatible Implementations MAY additionally certify and support Java SE 8.


Due to this "dual" compatibility requirement, the TCK is being built at the Java SE 8 byte code level.

Due to the stated MUST requirement of certifying on Java SE 11, Glassfish was going to move to being built at the Java SE 11 byte code level.

But, if we continue down that Java 11 only path for Glassfish, then we would not have an environment where we could prove compatibility with the Java SE 8 runtime.  And, that would prevent us from successfully delivering Jakarta EE 9 since we need to demonstrate both the Required and Optional aspects of the Platform.  (This is assuming that MUST==Required and MAY==Optional.)

We have been discussing a couple of alternatives....  Both of which would require an update to the Release Plan.  We're looking for feedback to help figure out which approach provides the least impact and best experience for our customers.

Alternative 1:

TCK and Glassfish would be built at the Java SE 8 byte code level.  The runtime for the execution of the TCK would be Java SE 11.  We would requireJava 11 for certifying compatibility for Jakarta EE 9.  We would notrequire compatibility testing with the Java SE 8 runtime.  We would still have TCK Jenkins jobs running with Java SE 8 so that progress could be monitored, but proving that certification works with Java SE 8 would not be a requirement for releasing Jakarta EE 9.

(To be totally open, this was the alternative that I presented to the Steering Committee today.  I was looking for a means of delivering Jakarta EE 9 without compromising the Jakarta EE 9 release plan too much.  Basically, looking to soften the Optional requirement of the Java SE 8 runtime.  During the course of the discussion, we came up with Alternative 2...)

Alternative 2:

TCK and Glassfish would still be built at the Java SE 8 byte code level.  But, we would flip the release plan requirements...  The runtime for the execution of the TCK would be Java SE 8.  We would requireJava 8 for certifying compatibility for Jakarta EE 9.  We would notrequirecompatibility testing with the Java SE 11 runtime.  We would still have TCK Jenkins jobs running with Java SE 11 so that progress could be monitored, but proving that certification works with Java SE 11 would not be a requirement for releasing Jakarta EE 9.

(Background... Everything we released for Milestone 1 was with Java SE 8.  We're already well on our way with the TCK effort.  Moving Glassfish to Java SE 11 could disrupt our progress.  Granted, we can hope for the best, but chances are moving to Java 11 will set us back a bit.  And, since Java SE 8's Extended EOS date continues to move out (it's actually further out than Java SE 11), then maybe it makes more sense to stick with the proven environment.)

Note:

The subset of Java SE features that were dropped by Java 11 will still be provided via Jakarta EE 9.  So, nothing else changes from a Release Plan content viewpoint.  We're just looking for ways to mitigate some of the risks associated with certifying Glassfish with both Java SE 8 and Java SE 11.

Feedback welcome!  Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  
sutter@xxxxxxxxxx   Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter_______________________________________________
jakartaee-spec-project-leads mailing list

jakartaee-spec-project-leads@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-spec-project-leads


 _______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev




Back to the top